Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:

Note: The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings. Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence.

The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by

attorney:

(1) The applicant;

(2) The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is

not the applicant or appellant;

(3) The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the

subject of the application; and

(4) Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a

personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied.

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1) Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2) Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her

position, arguments and contentions;

(3) Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments

and contentions;

(4) Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in

opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5) Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony

has not been admitted by the Board.

Old Business:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, Application #2012-19

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the side yard set back along the northern property line from twelve (12”) feet to one (1’) foot to allow for the detached accessory structure.

(Alison Terry, Deborah Barber, and Tom Skoog were sworn in by Mr. Gill.)

Discussion:

Mr. Manno moved to remove Application #2012-19 from the table. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Application #2012-19 is removed from the table.

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, stated she brought her neighbor to the meeting because of the BZBA’s request to have his opinion regarding the close encroachment to his land.

Tom Skoog, 426 North Granger Street, stated he viewed this as the replacement of an old structure with a newer structure. He stated the newer structure is “certainly better to look at than the old one.” Mr. Manno asked if the structure was the same size as what was previously in place. Mr. Skoog stated yes. Mr. Smith indicated he was not present at the last BZBA meeting and was unable to review the minutes and would abstain from voting on the application.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-19:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Kemper, Mr. Gill, and Mr. Manno agreed TRUE. Mr. Burge stated FALSE. (2) Whether the variance is substantial. The BZBA unanimously agreed the variance was not substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, Granville, stated he is a partner with Terra Nova Homes. He stated the golf course next to the proposed property in question is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). He stated the golf course zoning technically means the property could be developed into condos. Mr. Reed stated the surrounding uses to the Welsh Hills property are zoned PUD and their property is on the 5th hole of the golf course. Mr. Reed explained PUD zoning allows six units per lot, but their zoning for this property is SRD-A (Suburban Residential District-A). Mr. Reed explained they are requesting multiple variances from the BZBA and they received approval for a lot split from the Planning Commission, and this is contingent upon BZBA approval for variances. Mr. Reed stated it is important to note the surrounding PUD zoning because at one point the entire area was a farm. Mr. Gill stated the property in question is not zoned PUD. Mr. Reed stated he understands this, but the surrounding use is zoned PUD. Mr. Gill stated the surrounding use does not governize the BZBA.

Mr. Reed explained the three lots would have a shared driveway. He stated they reviewed the proposed Granville Comprehensive Plan and it states one goal is to manage development towards the Village area and to manage the tax base. Mr. Reed stated their development plan will be appealing to “empty nesters” who wish to have first floor living convenience. Mr. Reed stated their plans also help alleviate issues with the existing high water table and water issues on this particular lot. He explained this is the reason they have chosen to stay away from putting basements in and why they are requesting variances for the larger footprint. Mr. Reed stated they purchased the property with the intent to subdivide it after having it surveyed. He stated there is a house on the property that they intend to tear down and then they are proposing subdividing the lot into three lots total. Mr. Gill stated he is unaware of any Ordinances in place that say a large family cannot move into a particular home. Mr. Manno indicated they appreciate the chance to review the building plans, but their board does not govern design. Mr. Gill asked if the applicant would object to smaller houses. Mr. Reed stated this would mean a smaller footprint.

Herach Nazarian, 2897 Cambria Mill, stated a smaller footprint could mean building up higher and putting in a basement. Ms. Terry reviewed each of the requested variances. She stated the lot 1 request is for a variance to reduce the road frontage from ninety feet (90’) to eighty-two feet (82’). She stated the lot coverage request is to move from 20,000 square feet to 14,520 square feet. Ms. Terry stated the lot 1 building coverage request is to go from 15% to 21.7%. Ms. Terry stated the request for road frontage for lot 2 is from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’). She stated the lot coverage request is to move from 20,000 square feet to 14,042 square feet. Ms. Terry stated the lot 2 building coverage request is to go from 15% to 22.5%. Ms. Terry stated the lot 3 request is for a variance to reduce the road frontage from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’). She stated the lot coverage request is to move from 20,000 square feet to 14,998 square feet. Ms. Terry stated the lot 3 building coverage request is to go from 15% to 21.%. Ms. Terry stated the applicant is also requesting shared driveway access along the entire northern side of the property and this does not require a variance. Mr. Reed stated the maximum 15% building lot coverage is in place regardless of the size of the lot in SRD-A zoning. Ms. Terry stated the applicant is not requesting any variances for front, side, or rear yard setbacks. Mr. Reed stated the next-door lot is sixty feet (60’) wide and is split. Mr. Gill stated the BZBA is not a precedent setting board, so they do not need to consider how things have been done in other areas. Mr. Nazarian stated their request mirrors what is already in existence next door to their property.

Charlene Lossing, Pinehurst Drive, stated one of her biggest concerns is the proposed bigger house on a smaller lot. She stated there are rules and regulations to protect the zoning of this area and the requested variances for this project to not make sense. Ms. Lossing stated the existing houses are there and placed in this way – even if they shouldn’t be there.

John Vaughn, 188 Welsh Hills Road, explained the layout of the land. He stated they purchased their home almost 40 years ago when there was just surrounding farmland. He stated this "may not mean much to all, but it does mean something to some of us." He stated his property does not have road frontage. He explained that right now they are not looking right at their neighbor’s house, but the new houses would be 25’-30’ away from his house. Mr. Vaughn stated all of their views would be impacted. He stated they currently have a lot of open space next to them and their neighbor’s house has open space. Mr. Vaughn stated the developer has indicated they are targeting empty nesters with first floor living, but the proposed homes have upstairs bedrooms. Mr. Vaughn stated Granville has a great school system and he feels it would be hard to prohibit families from moving into these homes. Mr. Vaughn stated the proposed homes would have no yards for school aged children. He also stated he has concerns with traffic, density, and continuous use. Mr. Vaughn stated it was mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting if they had ever considered purchasing the property, and had they known the intent of building multiple homes – perhaps they would have purchased the property.

Mr. Vaughn stated the builders keep changing what they are doing just to get the needed approvals by stating at first there would be no basements – because of water and now if the lot size changes they say they would be putting in basements. He stated they don’t know what they want until they get an approval. Mr. Vaughn stated he was irritated with one of the comments made by a Planning Commission member regarding the neighbors having to live with change. He also asked if this is approved would a precedent be set for future development in the SRD-A zoning. Mr. Gill stated the BZBA is a separate body from the Planning Commission and they are a non-precedent setting quasi-judicial board. Mr. Vaughn asked if he can request a variance to make his home bigger. Mr. Gill stated he is able to make an application for this. Mr. Vaughn stated that regarding the water in the area, there are issues and he has two sump pumps in place. He indicated it would be wonderful if the developer could address all water issues in the area.

Mike Lafferty, 195 Welsh Hills Road, indicated his property sits across the road from the proposed development. Assistant Law Director King established that Mr. Lafferty’s property is only divided by the roadway and is considered a contiguous property to the property in question. Mr. Lafferty stated he has never heard of Terra Nova Homes, but he does believe their plan is a bad idea for their neighborhood. He stated “they are trying to shoe horn in too many buildings into one small property.” Mr. Lafferty stated his biggest concern is regarding the flooding problem. He explained they have a meadow and it floods and they worry the proposed project would add to flooding on their property. Mr. Lafferty stated he has lived at this home for 21 years. Mr. Lafferty stated this area is located in a flood plain. Ms. Terry clarified that the property is not designated as a flood plain by FEMA and this is what the Village references. Mr. Lafferty stated this is not buildable acreage and it may not say on Village paper that it is not in the flood plain, but it is. Mr. Smith stated he appreciates Mr. Lafferty’s comments. He stated the property at 198 Welsh Hills Road is evidentially not absorbing water now. He questioned how this could push water back to Mr. Lafferty’s property? Mr. Lafferty stated the water could be pushed back if there is another major rain like what occurred in 1990. He went on to say that three inches in an hour isn’t unheard of. Ms. Terry stated that if the property is not designated as flood plain, the Village does not have the legal right deny an application based on this reason. Mr. Lafferty stated the applicant is also proposing to build a street that would open up two hundred feet from where Welsh Hills Road, Granger Street, and Cedar Street – a major intersection with a lot of traffic. He stated there would be three driveways within twenty-five feet (25’). He stated three homes in this area causes alarm and is a legitimate concern for safety. Mr. Lafferty stated there would also be a significant loss of green space, and this is an important part of the neighborhood. He stated they currently view this property and the existing green space in place. Mr. Lafferty stated he maintains his property with green space in mind and this proposal will take a lot of green space from the immediate vicinity. Mr. Lafferty stated the applicant’s plans would impact the school system and there is no guarantee empty nesters will purchase the property. He added that an empty nester house wouldn’t have multiple bedrooms located on the second floor. Mr. Lafferty stated the proposal is a bad idea all around. Mr. Kemper stated he is not sure he understands the topography of the area enough to know where the water goes.

Geoffrey Hiler, 212 Welsh Hills Road, stated his property was subdivided at one time when it was part of the Township. He stated his home was built in 1964. Mr. Hiler stated there is a safety issue with three houses on this small lot. He stated Cedar Street, Granger Street, and Welsh Hills Road are all very close to the proposed driveway. He stated traffic will be backed up. Mr. Hiler stated the lot is eighty-two feet (82’) wide. Mr. Hiler stated the houses proposed by the applicant cannot be built with the current code standards. Mr. Reed stated this is not true. Mr. Manno agreed the lots are buildable when subdivided. Ms. Terry stated the existing lot is grandfathered. Mr. Hiler stated the applicant indicated at a previous Planning Commission meeting they were not sure of the lot coverage standards being 15% or 20%. Mr. Hiler stated the intention for zoning in the SRD-A area is to transition from the village proper to a rural area. He stated he purchased his home in September of last year. He went on to say he bought this house because he lived in German Village and he could lean out the window and touch the house next door. He stated he purchased the home on Welsh Hills Road because it wasn’t in such a confined area and the openness drew him to the house. Mr. Hiler stated his site line would be affected if these homes are built. Mr. Gill asked if screening in this area could be a benefit. Mr. Hiler stated of course he would want screening, but he would also just assume to not have anyone back there. Mr. Gill stated the BZBA decides on variances only. He asked when Mr. Hiler was made aware of the plans for Terra Nova to build. Mr. Hiler stated Mr. Reed stopped by his home and spoke with his partner. He stated Mr. Reed indicated there was an issue with a survey and part of their retaining wall is located on Mr. Reed’s property. He stated his partner felt threatened by Mr. Reed’s comments indicated the retaining wall wouldn’t be an issue if they did not object to the variances.

Mr. Manno stated even if the property was not split, the applicant could potentially still build their house fifty feet from the rear property line and this would still affect Mr. Hiler’s site line. Mr. Hiler agreed. Mr. Burge asked if Mr. Hiler’s driveway runs down the south side of the property. Mr. Hiler stated yes. Ms. Terry stated the plans call for the driveway to be located five feet from the property line, which meets the requirement. Mr. Manno asked the width of the driveway. Mr. Reed stated ten feet (10’). Mr. Manno stated the applicant’s proposal doesn’t have to be referred to as an “empty nester” home for approval purposes.

John Davis, 40 Pinehurst Drive, indicated he is able to speak in regards to the application because of the 4th category listed. The Assistant Law Director agreed. Mr. Davis stated the average lot coverage for the three lots is 21.7%. He stated this is 27% smaller than what is allowed in SRD-A zoning. Mr. Davis stated it concerns him to have properties that close to his with the current density. He asked what would stop his other neighbor from putting six or eight houses on a two-acre lot? He stated he realizes the BZBA is saying they are not a precedent setting board, but if this is approved it “reduces the activation energy” or “reduces the energy to make that argument in the future.” Mr. Davis indicated they moved into their home in July of last year. He stated the only sure way to make sure there isn’t an influx of children placed in the school system is to place one house on the lot. He added they cannot predict who will purchase the homes nor should they discriminate against who purchases them. Mr. Davis stated if one house is put in place, there is no need to grant a variance for road frontage.

Lisa Dietrich, 40 Pinehurst Drive, stated she doesn’t’ think these plans capture the spirit of what the board intended for the SRD-A zoning. She stated the applicant is requesting too many changes that need to be made to fit the three homes in. She stated the applicant has indicated they would like to keep the tall evergreens in place, but this could change depending on the placement of the homes. She stated the removal of the trees could also affect drainage. Ms. Dietrich stated the proposed lane is too long to wait in the back driveway and one can’t see if someone turns in the driveway. She stated she can foresee safety issues. Ms. Dietrich stated the more building that occurs on the land, the less area there is to absorb water.

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Lafferty if he feels damage to his property value would occur, as he indicated in his submitted written testimony. Mr. Lafferty stated he hasn’t yet talked to a realtor, but he does believe the entire neighborhood would be negatively impacted because of the loss of green space. Bryon Reed stated the water issue is on the golf course and it is their intent to work with them to alleviate this problem. He stated they prefer to not put in a basement and this is the reason for requesting a larger footprint and variance. Mr. Reed stated he has done market research and his home would meet an empty nesters lifestyle. The BZBA questioned whom Mr. Reed spoke to at the Granville Golf Course? Mr. Reed stated he had a conversation with Rodney Butt and he thought the plans were a good idea. Ms. Terry stated the Village has not heard anything from the Granville Golf Course. Mr. Reed stated nobody likes change and no one wants green space to be developed, but it offers opportunity. He stated the Village’s revised Comprehensive Plan is to develop property closer to the core of the downtown area. Mr. Reed stated everyone has had the opportunity to live in Granville because their lot was at one time subdivided. He explained they are trying to provide an opportunity for people to live in Granville. Mr. Reed stated driveways are shared in all communities, including Mr. Vaughn’s property next door. Mr. Reed indicated he apologizes if Mr. Hiler or his partner felt threatened. He stated he showed him exactly what their plans are and offered to work with them to help resolve the issue that arose from the survey. Herach Nazarian stated the entrance for Pinehurst Drive is one hundred feet (100’) from the intersection and there are quite a few houses on this road. Mr. Nazarian stated he doesn’t think adding three houses would make things any different. Mr. Hiler stated the issue is not putting in another driveway, but more of where the driveway is located and it is very close to the intersection.

Dottie Vaughn, 188 Welsh Hills Road, stated it was her understanding that the three homes would face the golf course. She stated she will have to look at the back of a house from her house. I will have a back door under my nose. I don’t think three should be allowed like cracker boxes. Ms. Vaughn stated she plans to retire soon and wishes to enjoy her home and property. She stated they expected something to be built on this lot at some point, but not three homes. Mr. Gill stated a home could be built on the lot in a way to affect site lines – even if there was just one home. Ms. Vaughn stated she has a shared driveway and they can “be a pain.” She indicated she may consider selling her home if this subdivision is approved. Mr. Nazarian stated the proposed homes have four-sided architecture, and it’s difficult to pinpoint the back of the home. He stated the side view would be visible from Ms. Vaughn’s home. He stated they have shifted their plans for building at times because they were unsure as to what could be approved. Mr. Lafferty stated there is a safety issue with this property and it is four or five feet below the grade of the road. He explained the lane slopes upward. Mr. Lafferty stated the proposed homes are close to the intersection and the traffic is an issue. Mr. Reed stated a driveway is in this same location and he has never had a problem pulling out of this area. He explained there is a clear view because of the homes sitting up high to the road level. Mr. Smith asked how close the last house would be to the back line of the property. Ms. Terry stated this home would be sixty feet (60’) and the village setback is fifty feet (50’). Mr. Smith asked Mr. Reed’s thoughts on the economic viability of the land if the variance is denied; He stated this is part of some of the criteria the BZBA will review this evening. Mr. Reed stated it clearly diminishes the economic viability. Mr. Manno stated the developer took this risk when they purchased the property. Mr. Burge asked if all the homes would be built simultaneously. Mr. Reed stated probably not. He stated they still need a demolition permit for the cottage. Mr. Reed stated that if the variances are approved then they will figure out the staging. He guessed they would build one home and then try to sell other two. John Davis stated he doesn’t think the neighbors are objecting to change. He stated he does believe the applicant can improve this property. Mr. Davis stated the proposed house is smaller than his garage, but he objects to the character of the change and to the density of the houses in this area. Mr. Davis stated he thinks the developer can still turn a handsome profit by building one house. He stated the BZBA needs to consider whether they want to increase the number of houses for the school system and Granville. Mr. Davis stated his primary objection is to the building of three homes and he would object less to two homes being built. Mr. Reed asked how he would feel if they built a 20,000 square foot house, because in reality it could be done. Mr. Manno stated the applicant could have a legal right to build within the setback of that lot. Mr. Gill stated they are not voting on density issues on this lot per say. Mr. Smith questioned if staff had any further comments regarding safety from the driveway. Ms. Terry stated there is an existing driveway and they can’t regulate the number of cars that enter or exit a driveway. She stated it could be different if the applicant were proposing an additional access point off of Welsh Hills Road. Ms. Terry stated the Village can’t have control over utilization of an existing access point. She stated that this isn’t to say the BZBA can’t consider this in their variance review. Ms. Terry stated she is the flood plain regulator for the Village of Granville. She stated the proposed lot is not within the FEMA flood plain, nor is it close to the floodplain, and therefore is a buildable lot. Ms. Terry stated the Village cannot legally stop a house or houses from being built on the property, so long as they meet the zoning requirements.

Mr. Gill asked if the applicant wished to request any type of revision on this application. Mr. Reed asked what would you like to see in terms of a revision? Mr. Gill stated the perspective of building two homes versus three keeps coming up, but the BZBA has not voted. He indicated they could go through the criteria.

Mr. Reed indicated they would be agreeable to two homes. Mr. Gill questioned if the application should be tabled so the applicant could present the plans for two homes. Ms. Terry indicated the applicant would need to go back to the Planning Commission to have a revised application for a lot split, rather than the three lots that were previously approved. Mr. Reed stated the only variance they would need is for a single variance for each lot. Terra Nova Partners requested an amendment to their variance application, as follows: To reduce the required lot frontage for a public right-of-way on Lot 1 from ninety feet (90’) to eighty-two feet (82’); and to reduce the required lot frontage for a public right-of-way on Lot 2 from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’). He indicated he was aware they would need to seek further approval for a 50/50 lot split from the Planning Commission.

Mr. Manno motioned to approve the applicant’s request to amend Application #2012-34 in the following way: a variance to amend the lot frontage for Lot 1 to go from ninety feet (90’) to eighty-two feet (82’) and for the lot frontage for Lot 2 to go from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’); and for the applicant to seek further approval for a 50/50 lot split from the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote to Amend: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Manno (yes), Kemper (yes), Gill (yes). Motion to amend Application #2012-34 is approved 5-0.

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-34:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE. (2) Whether the variance is substantial. The BZBA unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed FALSE. Mr. Smith stated the lot next door has been subdivided with two lots on it.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. The BZBA unanimously agreed TRUE.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Gill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Manno stated FALSE. Mr. Burge stated TRUE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the BZBA stated FALSE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions.

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-34 as amended with a variance for lot frontage for Lot 1 to go from ninety feet (90’) to eighty-two feet (82’) and for the lot frontage for Lot 2 to go from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’); and for the applicant to seek approval for a 50/50 lot split from the Planning Commission. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-34: Manno (yes), Smith (no), Kemper (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried 4-1. Application #2012-34 is Approved as amended.

Finding of Fact

Old Business:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, Application #2012-19

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.